Monday, May 27, 2002 What do you think about the chucking controversy? email us with your views

There are two kinds of people in the world of cricket: those who are convinced that he chucks and those who believe he is a victim. In the broad scheme of things, Sri Lankan pace bowler Ruchira Perera being reported for a suspect action is only a sideshow: the real focus is Muttiah Muralitharan, who seems destined to become Test cricket's most successful bowler ever. Not only that, if he carries his current form for five more years, he could set a record that, much like Don Bradman's, might prove insurmountable for generations to come.

When Bobby Simpson said in Mumbai last week that it would hurt cricket when history gave credit to "bowlers with suspect arms for taking the highest number of wickets rather than great bowlers like Richard Hadlee and Kapil Dev", it was Murali that he was referring to.

Local media found Simpson's association with an indoor cricket academy more newsworthy, and it went largely unreported that he had resigned from the ICC's legal committee in protest against its inaction against chucking. The ICC's attitude, Simpson said, would not only encourage aspiring young bowlers to bowl with crooked arms but it would also ruin the careers of budding fast bowlers. Chucking, he said, is as vicious as match-fixing. For readers of Wisden.com and Wisden Asia Cricket, these are familiar words: Bishan Singh Bedi, the great Indian spinner who's never been afraid to call a spade a spade, expressed these very sentiments a few months ago.

But there's a counter-view, and it is equally compelling. Former English fast bowler Frank Tyson, who has spent a lifetime working on the science of cricket, offers a forceful argument in the forthcoming issue of Wisden Asia Cricket. Tyson has been closely associated with the University of Western Australia, which gave a clean chit to both Murali and Pakistani fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar, and he is of the firm opinion that "subjective judgements shouldn't be allowed to stand once the scientific assessment has been produced."

But Tyson makes another significant assertion that could have far-reaching implications. "The law is an ass," he says, "because it states that what constitutes a throw is the straightening of the arm just prior to delivery" and goes on to add, startlingly, that if the law was applied strictly, 90 per cent of bowlers would be found to be throwing. The law, he points out, doesn't differentiate between people who straighten the arm as part of a natural reflex action, which the body must observe to absorb the force, and people who deliberately straighten it. He argues that the law should be amended to punish straightening of the arm which is above a certain number of degrees.

Phew! Where does all this take us? How do we know a deliberate chuck from an unintentional one? Should the umpires now be armed with super-slow-motion replay devices? Or should, in fairness to all bowlers (cricket has always been a batsman's game anyway), chucking be made legal? But whichever way it goes, however outlandish the solution may be, and whatever pain it may cause in the short run, a move must be made towards the resolution of this contentious problem. Inaction is hurting cricket in more ways than the authorities imagine and the problem might get so monstrous in a few years that there would be no way deal with it.

A major problem with the game is that it's run by businessmen, who while they are critical to its commercial success, lack an intrinsic feel for it. Executives like Malcolm Gray, Malcolm Speed, Jagmohan Dalmiya and Tauqir Zia are crucial to keep the various cricket organisations rolling, but they shouldn't be allowed to make a mockery of the basic values of the game. The hypocrisy and the pussyfooting over chucking is reflective of a mindset that will not allow the applecart to derail.

Look at how farcical the Perera case is. Two neutral umpires raise doubts over his action and report him to the match referee. The implication is clear: Perera was suspected to be breaking the law. But yet, he carries on bowling because umpires are bound by an ICC directive (though not by law) not to no-ball a bowler with a suspect action; and is the highest wicket-taker for Sri Lanka in the match. His five wickets go down in the record books even though they may have been claimed through illegal deliveries. Not only that, he is allowed to carry on breaking the law while he undergoes a corrective process. If this isn't ridiculous, what is?

Cricket is a game that's run by the subjective assessment of umpires, often made in split seconds. The discretion of the umpire is good enough for almost decisions, including wides and lbws, where a lot depends on interpretations. Umpires have now been empowered to deal with on-field misdemeanours, for which players can be fined and suspended, yet they are virtually powerless to take action against a blatant transgression of the law as it stands.

This farce must end.

Sambit Bal is editor of Wisden.com India and Wisden Asia Cricket magazine.

More Indian View
Pitch black
Laxman's second coming
Ganguly can't stay at 3

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd